1999 (2) TMI 707 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the District Court to grant permission to sell trust property.
2. Nature of the property: whether it is a specific endowment or private trust.
3. Requirement of sanction under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
4. Validity of the High Court's permission for withdrawal of the Civil Revision Petition (C.R.P.) and Original Petition (O.P.).
5. Impact of Supreme Court's directions on the proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the District Court to Grant Permission to Sell Trust Property:
The District Judge dismissed the petition filed by the trustees seeking permission to sell the trust properties, citing that the trust deed explicitly prohibited such a sale and there was no necessity for it. The High Court initially upheld this view but later allowed a review application, permitting the sale based on the argument that the property was not generating adequate income and selling it would benefit the temple. The Supreme Court highlighted that the District Court's jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Trusts Act hinges on the nature of the property, and if it is a specific endowment, the District Court cannot grant permission for the sale.

2. Nature of the Property: Whether it is a Specific Endowment or Private Trust:
The High Court initially rejected the trustees' claim that there was only a charge on the income and not a dedication of the corpus of the property. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a clear adjudication on whether the property was a specific endowment vested in the Commissioner, HR & CE, or a private trust. This determination is crucial as it affects the jurisdiction and the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

3. Requirement of Sanction under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959:
The Commissioner, HR & CE, argued that the sale of the property required sanction under Section 34(1) of the Endowment Act, 1959, which was not obtained. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court must decide whether the property is a specific endowment and if the sale requires the Commissioner's permission under the Endowment Act, 1959.

4. Validity of the High Court's Permission for Withdrawal of the Civil Revision Petition (C.R.P.) and Original Petition (O.P.):
The High Court permitted the withdrawal of the C.R.P. and O.P., reasoning that no adjudication on merits would be nullified by such withdrawal. However, the Supreme Court found this approach legally correct but incomplete, as it did not consider the Supreme Court's earlier direction for an adjudication on merits. The trustees had benefited from the Supreme Court's order to drop proceedings against them, and thus, could not withdraw the petitions to avoid an adjudication on the nature of the property.

5. Impact of Supreme Court's Directions on the Proceedings:
The Supreme Court had directed the High Court to decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law, including the nature of the property and the necessity of the Commissioner's sanction. The Supreme Court reiterated this directive, emphasizing the need for a thorough adjudication considering the public interest involved and the 'parens patriae' jurisdiction of the courts over charitable and religious trusts.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, remitting the matter to the High Court for a decision on merits and in accordance with law. The High Court must consider the nature of the property, the necessity of the Commissioner's sanction under the Endowment Act, 1959, and the jurisdictional aspects. The High Court is also empowered to receive additional evidence if necessary. The Supreme Court's directive ensures a comprehensive adjudication, safeguarding the interests of the trust and compliance with legal requirements.